Bhat, Ag. CJ.

First-respondent, owner of the diluted premises filed eviction petition against second respondent herein and appellant alleging that premises had been let out to second respondent who had unlawfully sublet the same to the appellant and that provided a ground for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The eviction petition was resisted by contending that even though second respondent was the original tenant, by later arrangement appellant got into possession with the consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller accepted this plea and dismissed the eviction petition. But that was reversed by the appellate court and the reversal confirmed by the revisional court, namely, District Court under S.20 of the Act. The alleged sub tenant challenged the proceedings before this court, namely under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition having been dismissed by the learned single judge though conditionally granting six months time to vacate, this appeal is filed.

2. We asked learned counsel for the appellant to explain how an appeal is maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that o